> They do it this way because they are stupid individuals who are paid to hire individuals more intelligent than they are. This is partly inevitable, not every

> They do it this way because they are stupid individuals who are paid to hire individuals more intelligent than they are. This is partly inevitable, not every interviewer will be smarter than the candidates they are interviewing. I’m curious why your distribution is so skewed though (all interviewers are dumber than all candidates). I’m not sure how satisfiable this is, considering that some of the candidates become employees and then future interviewers. To keep this constraint, there must continue to be an unbounded growth of intelligence at FAANG. If that’s the case, it seems like a great place to learn from smart people. > To wit: if your hiring process is transparent and commands no respect Would definitely say the hiring process is not as transparent as it could be. Not sure about “commands no respect”. Considering how popular algorithmic interviews have become for non-FAANG companies, there must be some people who decided to value it. Perhaps you don’t consider the opinion of anyone who does value it important enough to include. But then your sample becomes slightly biased right?